My Atheist Friends, Help Me Understand

I read posts here that call different things, "harmful to humanity." Others call something, "good" or "bad" or "evil."

A very simple question, who gets to decide the definition of "harmful to humanity" and what is there critieria? The same for "good," "bad," and "evil?" These are not material terms. If everything is material isn't there just "is" and not these moral declarations if one is being thoroughly atheist?

Help me understand your position so I am fair and honest about the views. Thanks.

A good way to ease suffering due to starvation is to examine what we eat. If the UN are concerned with the scale of meat consumption then that is reason enough to expect it to be raised as a topic of discussion. It seems a little rich to be criticising others with a well thought out ethical position when you don't have your own.

You've read my statement of my ethical position and stated that you can't understand it. Having no understanding of it, you just continue to push your line on starvation as though it somehow relates. You know, even stupid people often realize their opinion isn't valid when they don't have a clue what is going on - so where does that leave you?

What a charming person lol. If you expressed yourself better, we could have had a conversation. However, I can see you are not interested but just want to push your narrow views, somewhat aggressively and arrogantly in my opinion.

If the choices we make about our menus are enough to attract international bodies like the UN and EU then I think it safe to conclude they are important issues. If you could lift your vision a little you might too.

You misunderstood. It did not cite these organisations as sources of issues of ethical concern. Rather I just wanted to show Spoonheim that the our menu is an important issue. It happens to be the case that I think it not only a health issue, but an ethical one.